Lately I have been thinking that something like Wins Above Replacement per Game would be a better judge of pure baseball talent. Think about a guy like Ichiro who has 60.0 career WAR (per Baseball Reference), but he came into the league from Japan when he was 27; the middle of many players' prime. He could have easily garnered another 25-30 WAR had he come into the league 5 or 6 years earlier. Had that been the case, 85 WAR would rank him 33rd all time, alongside guys like Ken Griffey Jr, George Brett, and Wade Boggs. Currently he is 126th, 0.2 WAR behind Bobby Abreu! I think he definitely is closer to being one of the 30-35 best players of all time than the126th best. It would also account for anomalies like 2020 and strike-shortened seasons. Granted, those would likely have a very small effect over the long term, but little things like that can add up and skew perception.
I believe if Trout misses 40 games this year, it will be five years in row. It is a testament to his greatness that he has been essentially absent for 5 years and is still discussed as one of the greats.
One observation on your comment regarding aging curves and Ben Morris. The often believed baseball peak age of 27/28 is a function of how baseball has traditionally developed players and not an existential truth in my view. It has always struck me from observations over the years that the peak in baseball is a function of 2 simultaneous curves - a physiological curve (believed to peak in the early 20s, which slowly declines thereafter) and an experiential curve that peaks when a player gains the experience of roughly 1,000 plate appearances or so (it can vary between 800 and 1,300 or so) and flattens thereafter. The key, is to get through roughly 1,000 plate appearances at the youngest age possible for truly exceptional talents. Teams seem to realize this today and are pushing players into the Bigs earlier to capture that higher/younger peak value from those curves.
The age 27/28 peak belief comes from the historical reality that baseball delivered players to the majors from the minors at a later age when that play accumulated 1,000 PAs or so at around 27 or 28. It's an effect - not a cause. In fact, much value was lost in the minors for great talents.
That speaks to Trout's peak as Ben noted. Bryce Harper is another example, accumulating around 1,000 PAs in 2015 at age 22 - his MVP year. At the time I said, like Ben, that it was his peak - and everyone disagreed. Recall that during his free agency, the media told everyone that he was "still 2-3 years from his peak."
Not so.
Harper - like Trout - has suffered injuries, but injuries are a part of aging - not always some bad luck phenomena that just happens to strike out of the blue. They increase over time as you age and wear down. Trout in particular, has always struck me as having a compact but violent swing that would not be sustainable as he and his body aged.
Chasing peak years - like GOATs - is fragile exercise as well.
Lately I have been thinking that something like Wins Above Replacement per Game would be a better judge of pure baseball talent. Think about a guy like Ichiro who has 60.0 career WAR (per Baseball Reference), but he came into the league from Japan when he was 27; the middle of many players' prime. He could have easily garnered another 25-30 WAR had he come into the league 5 or 6 years earlier. Had that been the case, 85 WAR would rank him 33rd all time, alongside guys like Ken Griffey Jr, George Brett, and Wade Boggs. Currently he is 126th, 0.2 WAR behind Bobby Abreu! I think he definitely is closer to being one of the 30-35 best players of all time than the126th best. It would also account for anomalies like 2020 and strike-shortened seasons. Granted, those would likely have a very small effect over the long term, but little things like that can add up and skew perception.
I believe if Trout misses 40 games this year, it will be five years in row. It is a testament to his greatness that he has been essentially absent for 5 years and is still discussed as one of the greats.
One observation on your comment regarding aging curves and Ben Morris. The often believed baseball peak age of 27/28 is a function of how baseball has traditionally developed players and not an existential truth in my view. It has always struck me from observations over the years that the peak in baseball is a function of 2 simultaneous curves - a physiological curve (believed to peak in the early 20s, which slowly declines thereafter) and an experiential curve that peaks when a player gains the experience of roughly 1,000 plate appearances or so (it can vary between 800 and 1,300 or so) and flattens thereafter. The key, is to get through roughly 1,000 plate appearances at the youngest age possible for truly exceptional talents. Teams seem to realize this today and are pushing players into the Bigs earlier to capture that higher/younger peak value from those curves.
The age 27/28 peak belief comes from the historical reality that baseball delivered players to the majors from the minors at a later age when that play accumulated 1,000 PAs or so at around 27 or 28. It's an effect - not a cause. In fact, much value was lost in the minors for great talents.
That speaks to Trout's peak as Ben noted. Bryce Harper is another example, accumulating around 1,000 PAs in 2015 at age 22 - his MVP year. At the time I said, like Ben, that it was his peak - and everyone disagreed. Recall that during his free agency, the media told everyone that he was "still 2-3 years from his peak."
Not so.
Harper - like Trout - has suffered injuries, but injuries are a part of aging - not always some bad luck phenomena that just happens to strike out of the blue. They increase over time as you age and wear down. Trout in particular, has always struck me as having a compact but violent swing that would not be sustainable as he and his body aged.
Chasing peak years - like GOATs - is fragile exercise as well.